The Economics and Ideology of Art...Or Not.

I can’t believe that I’m actually going to write a post about Althusser (whom I absolutely loathe), but here goes.

I know that we tend to group Althusser in with Freud, Marx, and yes, Foucault, in the category of the unchallenged theorists – i.e., their ideas are true and self-evident (once articulated). However, I’m going to venture to problematize its relevance to our class: mostly because I find anything derivative of or related to Marxism irritating, but also because I think that ideas like this are important to know, but sometimes less important to read than ideas that might be more topical. For example, we didn’t read Discipline and Punish – we read some work of Foucault’s that more accurately addressed a concern in film. What does Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses bring to film?

To begin, I will recognize (how gracious of me, right?) that to some extent, of course, Althusser is correct. Yes, the ways in which we function in society are the result of socialization and inculcation of norms that occur in the standardized (or even non-standard) educational system. Yes, history would suggest that the standardized educational system has replaced the socio-religious educational system in the modern period. His (Marxian) idea of substructure as the economy and economic processes, or the system of values and exchange on which society subsists is something of a given that I’m not giving him or Marx any credit for articulating. What is interesting to me, however, are the ways in which the “ideological” section of the superstructure functions for Althusser. Once we pass all of his self-indulgent nonsense about descriptive theory versus “hard theory,” we come to his seemingly brilliant enunciation of ideological State apparatuses (ISAs), all of which seem to correspond to what Foucault would later articulate as institutions of power (although I’m not sure how relevant “trade-unions” really are any more). Yet this seems interesting in a “huh, ok” sort of way. How does this apply to our own concerns - to the production of art?

I suppose the point of criticizing all of this is then to locate artistic creation on this uninspired cycle of production. Yes, painting and film-making is dependent upon any number of outside factors: from the chain of manufacturing that result in paint or film (as well as the ideological influences of Windsor & Newton or Kodak) to the educational institutions that have influenced how the artist paints, conceives of the world around him, and articulates these conceptions. But is everything at the base really contingent upon that substructure of the economy? Is art really about an exchange of value? Can anything come from this mess of economic and ideological intersection?

I’m inclined to disagree, but I’m not sure how. If we claim that art doesn’t function in the normative economic system of exchange because each viewer receives a different benefit/value from exposure to the art, then these differences are the result of ideological differences in the socialization of an individual. If we were to suggest that there is no system of exchange because the artist receives no reciprocal value from releasing his project into the world, then we would have to correct ourselves upon noting that most economic theory allows for a variation in perceived value/utility, and that the production of the art itself can be a gratifying experience (which is again, the result of cultural inculcation). And, of course, art is indubitably regulated by the politico-legal apparatus of the superstructure (think Giuliani-era New York, for one example).Yet, shouldn’t there be an element to art that can be analyzed outside of this system of economics/ideology? Are we back to that “I just feel it” Kael so scorned last week? What use is Althusser in telling us anything about art? What do we really gain by reading him in this class?

If the point of a film theory course is to gain an understanding of the ways in which any product interacts with our world and one another, then maybe Althusser is a token piece that needs to be thrown in. Yet, how does this theory distinguish film from, for example, painting? One might insert both terms interchangeably (as I have done) without changing the result. Not to say that this renders the theory irrelevant, but it does raise the question of whether or not this serves to illuminate film or merely to illuminate our system of production and exchange. I don’t necessarily have answers to any of these questions, but I do think they are important ones to ask. It is always always always important to question why you are reading something, and why something is worth addressing.

Or, if the point of film theory course is also to nurture and explore a love of film and a love of art that supersedes the importance of any depressingly nihilistic theory, then I say we leave Althusser back in that Intro to Critical Theory course that we all earnestly try to avoid taking. Film is about more than commodification and ideology. Art is about more than a system of exchange. If we look at our entire world as just a grid of economics and ideology (or even as a series of discursive webs), then why bother with art? That’s a question I think we all answer in our own way, but I’ll bet you that none of our answers will have anything to do with ISAs.